Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that Christian photographers cannot refuse to photograph a “gay wedding” on religious grounds. The absurdity and tyranny of this ruling is almost unfathomable, but what is less surprising is the vindictive nature of the entire case. As an entire slew of court cases in Canada demonstrates, the radical homosexual movement is not about fairness, tolerance or equality. Like its equivalents among racial minorities (think Black Panther Party) or feminists, it is about envy, revenge, and domination. As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Whether your are Christian or not, whether you have homosexual inclinations or not, the implications of the New Mexico court’s rulings for political liberty, religious freedom and private property rights ought to frighten you if you care in the least about these concepts.

The primary reasoning behind the court ruling is that sexual orientation, under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, is a protected category. As such, no one offering a public service – which this photography business is presumed to do – can lawfully refuse services on the grounds that those seeking them are homosexual. As abhorrent and Orwellian as I find most “human rights” legislation to be these days (its always some secular militant view of what constitutes “human rights”), not even the law ought to prevent the photographers from refusing service.

There must be, logically, a difference between one’s sexual orientation and one’s actions. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way), absolutely no one has to get “married”, or in this case, to have a public ceremony in which two people claim to be married. The real test of New Mexico’s law would have been if a homosexual individual sought photography services, or even two homosexuals who weren’t asking for wedding photos. It was specifically the act of a “marriage” that the photographers sought to abstain from. Are gay “weddings” a protected category of actions? What if they asked the photographers to take pictures of them performing lewd sex acts, or implied sex acts? Moreover, if for instance religion is also a protected category, would the photographers have a legal obligation to photograph an occult ritual or a sacrilegious desecration of holy objects conducted by Satanists?

The court’s decision was presumptuous, ideological, and outrageous. It constitutes a violation of the private property rights and religious liberty of the photographers. It destroys the social fabric by forcing people to act against their moral convictions when there are plenty of reasonable alternatives available. More perversely, however, it serves to reinforce the utterly dishonest narrative that equivocates historical discrimination against black people with efforts to oppose the legitimization of the radical homosexual agenda. There isn’t a good or service or actual right being denied to people who identify as gay. There are plenty of photographers who will participate in a “gay wedding.” But this isn’t good enough. This vindictive movement will hunt down every dissenter until the world is purified and remade to their liking.

This is oppression. It is part of a concerted effort to invade the thoughts, beliefs and values of American citizens and particularly Christians and force them in a different direction. It is about thought-policing and ideological conformity. We must oppose it, and refuse to stop until the line is so firmly entrenched that none would dare attempt to cross it.

119 Responses to Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

This is exactly what happens when a society turns it back on God, and more specifically on it self. The issue here isn’t homosexual marriage (incidentally as long as Christians continue to misuse the beautiful word “gay” to describe sodomy the problem will never improve). the issue is homosexuality at large.

We have ignored an entire generation that euphemistically describes mortal sin as ” hooking up”. We go to unmarried couples homes and treat them as married, then wonder why their generation doesn’t marry anymore. Anyone with young adult children knows that the entire generation no longer sees homosexuality as deviant. Now if we have turned our backs on God in order to mollify our children, how dare we wonder what has become of our society. Is this travesty of homosexual “marriage” not entirely logical, given the cowardly state of we, who were called by God to resist it.

These Laws will only be reversed when we have the courage to stand and call homosexuality what it is; sin. Only then, when we have the courage to teach our children that sex is the sacred bond between a married couple that leads to babies (I know it sounds simple, that’s the point!) can we, as Christians, claim the right to our faith. As long as we continue to turn our heads the other way and inadvertently encourage heterosexual sin in our “enlightened” children, have we any right to wonder how things like this happen?

By the way, if you want to play with another man’s genitals, then I won’t stand in your way. But kindly do it behind closed doors and don’t call the action marriage because it’s not. It’s filthy dirty. Yet I concede to your “right” to be a filth dirty pervert so long as you do not force the rest of society to follow you in your filthy dirty ways. God does allow you to be a filthy dirty sexual pervert. However, filthy dirty sex perverts like you want to force the rest of us to concede that your filthy dirty sexual perversion should be sanctified as marriage and that filty dirty sexual perverts should be treated the same as those united in the Sacrament of Holy Marriage. You are no different than those filthy dirty sexual perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah who tried to beat down the door to Lot’s house so that they could have anal sex with the angels whom Lot had welcomed inside. See Genesis 19:1-11. And you know the end of those men. First they were blinded (but they still didn’t give up – verse 11) and then their cities of wickedness were destroyed by fire from on high (buckle up, pervert, because God won’t withhold His justice forever. See Genesis 19:12-29.

Well God says: NO! In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:

9 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk [addictively and excessively], who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.

Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Demonic and Satanic by any other name. It’s time for disgusting, perverted, rancid sexual filth that your kind supports to be called what it is. We all have to repent – daily – lest we burn in hell for eternity. That include me repenting of my sin. That also includes you repenting of your filth. But you say that this call to repentance is unloving, unkind and unjust. You won’t say that before the Great White Throne of Judgment, but it’ll be too late:

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

—–

Yes, I want people like you defeated, muzzled and emasculated (politically) so that you can’t drag others to the fires of hell with you.

“In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

should be

“In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul (which a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear) in Corinthians 6:9-10 concerning dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

Arrrrggghhh – got so upset that people like Leo say the fecal stuff that he said that I did not edit correctly.

Wow, Leo.
I really appreciate how you gave your reasons and examples along with your explanation, as opposed to a baseless drive-by accusation.
Nope, no hate, intolerance, bigotry, or totalitarianism there!

Keep it up, liberals. If I ever had any doubts on the subject, you’re settling them for me.

Need any more evidence that Satan is sitting on the Throne and God has been thrown out of the window???? But have a heart, people of goodwill….. God has the Final Word and the Casting Vote. And Christ voted on the Cross at Calvary…..stand up Christian Solders and fight for God……yes we love, and embrace sodomites….but we hate the Sin as God does….let all of us practice the First of the Spiritual Works of Mercy here : Admonish the Sinners…..never compromise with Satanic perversions.

To you, Leo. I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions. Do not misquote Him on “Do not judge, lest you be judged”. He tells the adulterous woman…..”neither do I condemn you. But go AND SIN NO MORE. You see, Leo, God loves sinners. He died such a horrible death for us all. But He HATES SIN like all level headed, normal, intelligent and decent men and women do. Sodomy, Lesbianism, Abortion, Euthanasia and all those bestialities now dominating the Western World are Satanic, evil and filthy. That is, as I said above, doing what Jesus told us to do : ADMONISH THE SINNERS. And you are sinners par excellence, who are so arrogant and want to force your pervesities upon us all. WE SHALL NOT ACCEPT THAT, NEVER, NEVER AND AGAIN…..NEVER

I should never so early in the morning read and respond to the kind of stuff that Leo Salazar writes. The only proper response is what Mary42 gave: “I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions.” Thus do verses 9 and 10 in the Epistle of Jude state:

9* But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way)

This is a bit curious – I have heard some argue it is in-born, others it is a choice, others it is a combination, and others that it can be in-born for some, choice for others, and a combination for yet others. But I have never heard someone say it is neither (which would seem to exclude all of the above). Do you consider cultural conditioning as a distinct cause from “choice”?

I think Bonchamps is correct. The propensity or inclination to homosexual behavior is a disease like alcoholism or drug addiction. Being an alcoholic or drug addict is not sinful. Indeed, millions are in recovery and abstinent from intoxicants. For the person afflicted with same sex attraction, the behavior is his or her intoxicant of choice. Being so afflicted is a cross perhaps similar in certain ways to the cross of alcoholism or addiction. We can choose to take up our cross and follow Jesus, denying our selfish wants, or we can give up and wallow in the intoxicant of our choice: homosexual behavior, alcohol or drugs.

This is not a condemnation of those who drink alcohol in an adult manner, nor of the abstinent homosexual or lesbian. Not everyone is an alcoholic just as not everyone is a homosexual. Furthermore, there is only one place for sexual activity: in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. If a heterosexual is unmarried, then he is held to the same rules that a homosexual is held to: chastity. If a heterosexual is married, then he is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with anyone other than his spouse. It is utter selfishness (not love) to rut in heat like a mindless baboon expecting no consequences for one’s actions, whether that rutting is homosexual or heterosexual. Yet today’s liberal progressive society would have us believe that such animalistic rutting is freedom and liberty instead of what it really is: slavery to whatever titillates the genitals. That, my friends, is drug addiction “par excellence”. We are not baboons or bonobo chimpanzees. We are human beings created in the image and likeness of God Almighty Himself, and He expects and requires that we behave as such. Failure to so behave can result in being cast into the hell of addiction in this life time, never to end in the burning fires of hell in the next.

Use your God-given brains, Leo, instead of the stirring in your loins. You’re better than that.

Both national legislation and international conventions are casting their net ever wider.

The following is typical:- “Discrimination comprises any distinction applied between natural persons by reason of their origin, sex, family situation, physical appearance or patronymic, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, sexual morals or orientation, age, political opinions, trade union activities, or their membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion.”

Everything in life is some combination of genetics, environment, and individual decision. I don’t understand the need to pretend to know the ratios. We’re responsible for our choices to the extend that they were freely made and understood. Beyond that, we’re just guessing.

Leo – I think you missed the point. If someone writes an article entitled “A Penny Saved Is Not A Penny Earned”, you wouldn’t show up and reply, “no, that’s incorrect; a penny saved is a penny earned”. The title of this piece and the image accompanying it are shocking for a reason. They’re intended to jostle your thinking. At a time when the President is depicted with a rainbow halo, an image of a rainbow swastika is incongruent. A vibrant mind would ask why, not just reply that he agrees with conventional thinking. Maybe you did get the point of the article, but nothing in your comments indicates it.

Bonchamps said: “I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.” I do too.
Paul W. Primavera: I enjoyed reading your posts on Holy Scripture and still say my Hail Mary in Latin.
Mary @42: You cut to the chase and clarified the issue quickly.
Leo: What would the Holy Virgin say about your inexcusable defense of sinful behavior? The Holy Virgin weeps…and weeps.

Live and let live. Problems, accusations, and anti-stuff only happens when people impose upon other people and form ‘movements’ to do so.

If aids and abortion didn’t kick up in the 80’s as an alert that something has gone off balance with humanity, then all this antagonizing, righteousness and division could move beyond emotional insanity to rational behavior and growth to calm ‘diversity’.

We all have the possibility of achieving an integrity of our beliefs which are unique – we don’t need to butt heads or force change for another’s view of ‘integrity’. It’s just not right, practical, or any good to be ‘my way’ or else for anyone.

This ‘anti’ bit is creepy because it is dehumanizing for all sides. Animals, away from man’s influence, have more intelligence and instinct. We could learn from them – and they are cute and beautiful.

As someone who makes a living in the visual arts, (including photography) this kind of ruling is rather chilling. One statement of the ruling stuck out to me:

By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message. Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.

The notion that this sort of photography is being ‘merely asked to take photographs’ is absurd. Artistic photography is as much an expression and message of the photographer as of the client. It’s not simply pressing a button on a camera- if that was the case, no one would hire photographers. Rather, the whole point of selecting a particular photographer over another (or over a family member with a camera phone) is that the photographer has a particular style, quality, etc.- even message- that is communicated by that style. Often times you even have to be careful with the clients you choose to work for so that your style and message don’t get diluted.

Perhaps whoever made this ruling needs to open a photography business and see how well they do by merely ‘taking photographs.’

First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible. If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here), you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article. One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.

Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise. The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.

Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.

Leo, Bon specifically addressed the difference between the individual and the behavior in paragraph 3. The photographer isn’t objecting to the individual; he’s objecting to the action of gay marraige. Paul Primavers puts it succinctly: “God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin.”

As for the matter of genetic superiority, well, I don’t think anyone on this site cares about that. The real question is about moral superiority. Some people’s comments here have implied that heterosexuals are morally superior to homosexuals, and they’re wrong. Homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are wrong when they’re outside God’s parameters. The parameters for heterosexual sex are limited; those for homosexual sex are nonexistent.

There is a difference between having a certain melanin in one’s skin cells and willful perverted sexual behavior. That difference is however lost of enlightened Leo. Nevertheless, regardless of that loss on him, no one may discriminate against taking wedding photographs of a black heterosexual couple, but one may (indeed, must) for reason of conscience refuse to provide such services to two homosexual perverts who demand their ungodly “union” be normalized, accepted and even praised in photography.

Homosexual union is NOT marriage. Mutual masturbation or insertion of one’s male sexual organ into the orifice of another male is sickening, disgusting, filthy, dirty, perverted and disease-spreading. Just because certain animals engage in homosexual behavior (e.g., dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees, etc.) does not mean that a human created in the image and likeness of God Almighty should so debase and denigrate himself. We are NOT animals (but I do wonder about godless liberal progressive Democrats). God holds us to a higher standard. But in Leo’s world, it is unloving, unkind, unjust and divisive to say that.

Indeed we all agree that black people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than white people (or any other kind of people for that matter: red, yellow, brown, etc). In like manner, homosexual people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than heterosexual people. For that reason, those who engage in homosexual behavior will be held accountable before God for the same – because, since they are NOT by their own declaration mental defects, they are fully aware of the grave evil in which they engage. If they were mental defects, then they could be excuse as innocent on the grounds of such mental deficiency or disease.

Romans 1:18-32 applies, especially the last verse: “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”

18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

I kindly suggest you do some research on Log Cabin Republicans. There is a difference between being “gay” and a “militant homosexual”. It would be nice if you could see there is a diversity in your community and embrace that diversity. I also suggest that you look at the political basis that is the genesis of the militant homosexual movement – you will find it stems from far left socialist/communist ideology. Look at the underpinnings of thoses ideologies, do the research on what influenced the ideologies, look at the times those ideologies grew out of and then look at the public and personal histories of the men/women behind thoses ideologies. It will be enlightening and tragic at the same time. Much of the militant homosexual movement’s money comes from the same organizations or ppl that are sympathic to socialism/communism. I do not mean to be disrespectful but if you do not care to look and challege your beliefs then your ignorance cannot be helped. My beliefs are challenged every day by ppl like you and I have to analyze if I am mistaken – I am only a man and thus fallible. Ultimately, I find the truths contained in the teachings of the one and true Church are infallible.

Just as you accuss the ppl here of being closed-minded so are you. There is nothing I or anyone that is a faithful Catholic can say that will change your opinion and views. I do not wish to change your views or force you to act in a certain way but you seem to have a need/desire/compulsion to try to change mine or force me to act in a certain way. I just ask you respect my personhood and my basic human dignity as I respect yours.

There is a difference between a voluntary act, which ultimately homosexuality is, and a color, race, etc. You are trying to claim a similarity between racism and the anti-homosexuality as shown by believers in Christ’s word – there is none. One is based on hate and the differences in man (racism) and the other is based on the love for man (wishing that all could enjoy full fellowship with God) and desire that man live up to his/her potential.

I hope you can find peace and harmony because you seem angry and troubled. I will pray that you find and feel the true love of God. Peace be with you, my brother.

It’d be nice if Primavera gave the next line: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” And that’s serious business. You’ve got to realize, Leo, that we know we’re under the same judgement for all of our misdeeds. Christianity doesn’t single out the homosexual for condemnation.

We fight the battles we find ourselves in. If this were 1850, we’d be railing against slavery. Thirty years ago, we were mostly talking about abortion and communism. Now we’re talking about this. We haven’t suddenly started caring about homosexuality. We haven’t been secretly obsessed about homosexuality. We’re just playing the cards we’re dealt. And as this article demonstrates, the shift is taking place from protecting the rights of supporters of homosexual unions to diminishing the rights of opponents of homosexual unions. So the fight has been taken to our doorstep.

Post Script – my quote of Romans 1:32 doesn’t come across in the right way. In the original Greek of the epistle which St. Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, there were no divisions of chapter and verses. So Romans 2:1-16 immediately succeeds Romans 1:18-32 without the artifical divisions that were created to help the modern reader locate passages. Notice how St. Paul immediately stresses after his discussion about homosexual perversion that there is no partiality before God between the pagan homosexual pervert at the end of chapter 1 and the convert to Christianity at the beginning of chapter 2. The same rules apply to all of us, and none of us are worthy of Heaven. Note also that while St. Paul admonishes the believer NOT to judge, nowhere does he say that the believer is to give assent to sin either passively or actively. Indeed, his words are just the opposite. This gives new meaning to that other verse of Scripture which says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Paul – Yeah, I got that. That would’ve been a lot to pull together in six minutes.

I think it’s important for Leo – and for us – that we mention every once in a while that we’re all trying to work toward perfection. There’s a lot more hetero sin out there, numerically, and there’s no one on this board with a perfect track record. I say this a lot on the threads, but we’re called to be both right and good; when we’re talking about how right we are, it can sound like we’re talking about how good we are. I’d hate to think that we come off as jerks to an outsider.

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race [sexuality] above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

May the Lord Jesus reveal His glory to Leo. May Leo come to know the Person of Jesus Christ and be lead to acknowledge Jesus as Sovereign Lord and Merciful Savior. May he be given a thirsting for Truth, and through this thirsting discover authentic Love.

Amen to the thoughts expressed by Mary 42. Thank you for speaking in power and in the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you Leo for providing us an opportunity to check our relationship with the Lord…to test our courage to witness His Gospel, It takes little courage to comment on an anonymous blog; the true test is found on the battlefield of our heart.
2 Timothy 1:14 “guard the Truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”
We need to engage intellect through faithfully presenting Truth, in order to win hearts for Christ. 2 Timothy 2: 24-26 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
Titus 3:3-7 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, HE saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.”

We need to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, as His Justice is also His mercy. The earth is blanketed with the spirit of the antichrist. The only response is fervent prayer and fasting.
2 Timothy 1: 8-9 “Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord…Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of His own purpose…”

“If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here),”

Then you’re incredibly ignorant or naive – or a liar. Of course a radical homosexual movement exists, as much as radical feminism, radical race politics, and communism exist. The lawyer for the plaintiff in this very case is a radical gay advocate.

I defined “gay agenda” in my previous writing: a political movement with the objective of normalizing and legitimizing a homosexual lifestyle in every facet of social and personal life. That is a radical assault on the foundations of human civilization.

“you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article.”

Why should I define what is self-evident? Of course there’s a distinction.

“One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.”

Hey, I can’t tell people how to think. I’m not a radical gay activist, that’s not my thing. I would tell any of them that there is a difference between a person who simply lives their life, and a political activist, and that they would have to be brain-damaged not to understand this.

“Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise.”

So what? Are you whining because you couldn’t control their thoughts either?

Do you just lie awake at night cursing the 1st amendment or what? Or does it just bother you that anyone has the temerity to think an unacceptable thought?

“The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.”

This is just nonsense. No difference? Of course there is a difference. There is a massive difference. There are also differences between black and white cultures, between men and women, between Christians and Jews. Pretending differences don’t exist is ignorant and naive.

That being said, however, this has nothing to do with whether or not they are “the same” or “different” than me. I know you have this view in your head of us here as a bunch of tribalistic cavemen who want to oppress everyone who isn’t exactly like us – or at least, you seem as if you do. This is false. You’re engaging in prejudice of your own.

I really don’t desire to dictate what two people of any gender or sexual orientation do. Under our existing conception of private property rights, any two people can enter into the same kind of contracts as anyone else. They can share property and wealth, share a household, grant one another medical and/or legal power of attorney. I don’t believe society can or should make attempts to discern whether or not the people seeking them are gay and deny them on that basis.

“Gay rights” politics are not about obtaining the legal right to participate in society at the same level as everyone else, as the efforts against Jim Crow were. They are about one thing only: FORCING society, and particularly Christians, to treat them with the prestige and respectability they think they deserve.

They do NOT have a right to respect, prestige, polite smiles, or anything of the sort. And no one has any right to any good or service. But we’ll get to that below.

“Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.”

Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve. I think the original Civil Rights movement was perfectly within its rights to boycott businesses that wouldn’t serve blacks. And if gays want to boycott Christian photographers, that’s fine too.

But just to be clear: it is an insult, a disgusting mockery, to compare black skin to what is often willfully chosen deviant behavior. And it is no coincidence that it is the black voter who has been the most consistent opponent of “gay marriage” legislation. How do you think black Protestants and Catholics feel about constantly being compared to the sort of filthy degenerates who march in the streets in leather waving sex-toys around? You’re the insensitive lout here.

The premise of this article is correct and we do need the courage to address this.

Case in point: the recent expulsion from Dartmouth, prison sentence, criminal record and international humiliation of Tyler Clementi’s roommate who briefly watched part of an intimate encounter between Tyler and a male sex partner. Unfortunately, Tyler, who had many many personal issues prior to going to college, later committed suicide by jumping off the Geo. Washington Bridge. This was a tragic and horrible event.

But Tyler was NOT the victim of gay-bashing, and this incident was turned into a political statement when it should have been about invasion of privacy–something we all need to confront in this electronic age.

Tyler’s roommate had already “spied” on straight friends when he was in high school, as a prank. (And for the record, he never posted footage of Tyler on the internet.) He was an insensitive jerk, but there were indeed gay people among his acquaintences. He never referred to them with slurs. He made no complaint about having a gay roommate, other than some initial wisecracks to his friends when he first found out. He does sound like a pompous and insensitive kid, but those aren’t crimes. Tyler was the one who brought a strange “older” man to the room for a sexual encounter, kicking out his roommate, and creating “drama.” (This happens a lot in college–kids are expected to quietly leave the room if the roommate wants to have privacy with a partner. That’s ridiculous–the burden should be on the kid who brings home a sex partner to find a private place.)

Peeping on your roommate in these circumstances is immature and creepy, but I’m sure it has happened before, even before webcam technology. I am also fairly certain that he would have spied on Tyler if Tyler had brought home a girl. This was an ill-considered dumb act that young people that age seem prone to. That is why we have consequences that are intended to help them learn from their mistakes. He should have been penalizied by the university before this became a criminal matter. Tyler, too, should have been penalized, as I am sure the school has rules for dorm conduct.

It is conceivable to me that Tyler was depressed, perhaps had been rejected by this “older” guy (and older, to a college kid, may mean 25), and was still dealing with his parents finding out he was gay.

I am amazed at how many people try to compare this to the Mathew Shepard murder, which WAS an example of a kid being targeted for his sexual orientation. But there is not a war on gay people in this country: gays are tolerated and embraced to a degree that even 20 years ago would have been inconceivable.

The political Gay Rights movement would have us believe otherwise.

But this whole thing was about TYLER’S personal struggles, not about GAYS.

Yet the school immediately launched a lot of “sensitivity outreach” efforts.

I am sorry Donald I was wondering about that. I tend to talk like a sailor but certain bad things need to be given bad names so that people don’t act like bad things are good. I apologize for the vulgar language and will try to be more discreet.

“Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve.”

Let me remind you of what Rousseau says about democracy. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

If people are “born gay”, as the current theory goes, then it follows that they were created that way. And if they were created with that nature, then it’s on the Creator. If, as scripture tells us, He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?
I find homosexual behavior repugnant but at the same time wonder if gays are truly responsible for being true to their nature. For this reason, I remain agnostic and side with my old friend, Lucretius who put it this way 2,050 years ago:

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa
“Had God designed the world, it would not be
A world so frail and faulty as we see.”

Joe Green wrote, “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

Leo Salazar wrote, “You say ‘blame,’ I say ‘credit.’

Whom God formed in the Garden of Eden were two perfect human beings, male and female. He did NOT create a predisposition to homosexuality any more than He created a predisposition to alcoholism. That some are born with mental defect or disease (e.g., a predisposition to homosexuality or a predisposition to alcoholism) is NOT the fault of God, but the result of the mortal wound of sin to which man wilfully acceded in the Garden of Eden. If indeed people are born this way, then it is a genetic defect that God never ever created. Man yielded out of self-will run riot to satan’s temptation. That in turn resulted in sin, and the wages of that sin are death. No one would be homosexual were it not for man’s initial disobedience. Again, that some are born with a predisposition to same sex attraction is NO different than some having been born with a predisposition to alcoholism. It cannot be overemphasized that God does NOT create the predisposition to defect or disease. Understand this: the mortal wound in the flesh of mankind creates that predisposition. God cannot create or cause evil because God is inherently and intrinsically all-good. Rather, Adam and Eve’s rejection of obedience to God’s commands resulted in evil, and homosexual behavior is evil; therefore, Adam and Eve’s disobedience results in that behavior (as well as the heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication – the rules are the same for everyone).

That being said, God has mercy on those for whom He chooses to have mercy, and God visits justice on those for whom He chooses to visit justice. It is God’s sovereign will, and in fact we ALL – hetero and homosexual – merit only God’s justice, NOT God’s mercy. That God so love the world to send His only begotten Son (John 3:16) is His divine and sovereign mercy which neither homo nor heterosexual merit.

As Romans 9:6-29 states:

[ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose ]

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”[b] 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

[ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice ]

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As He says also in Hosea:

“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

29 And as Isaiah said before:

“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth[l] had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

I’ve just read your response. I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments to you in detail. You’ve made some excellent points. But you’ve also made some points that seem to me based on gross assumptions and a plain misreading of what I wrote.

I don’t think it’s useful to go into a detailed reaction to what you’ve written, but I would like to address two things.

1) The comparison between race and sexual orientation discrimination: You weren’t the only one on this page to make an illogical leap based on my comments. Perhaps my writing lacked clarity. What I said was that I heard a striking similarity between the arguments that I heard racists using and the arguments that people on this forum use against homosexuals. I am very well aware that race/sexuality is apples/oranges. That’s precisely why I find the arguments of gay baiters so stunningly absurd.

2) Personal attacks: You are a very literate writer and I enjoy reading your work. You sound like an intelligent person (no, I dont think you’re a bunch of tribalistic cavemen). That’s what is so disturbing to read from you, of all people, direct and personal attacks against me. From others on this page [unnamed] it’s par for the course, and I don’t take them seriously. But not from you.
The key to civil discourse is “attack the ideas, not the person.” I admire very much that @T.Shaw apologized for judging me unfairly. I think we can have a far more productive and positive exchange with each other if we refrain from name calling.

What Rousseau is saying is that, as between the Public on the one hand and the individual on the other, there is no outsider who has the power to adjudicate on their differences and enforce a decision.

In other words, you cannot take a sovereign, independent state to court, precisely because it is sovereign and independent; it is subject to no superior person or body

Valentin: Do you mean by “why mess around with your roommate?” that the incident (peeping) never should have taken place? Exactly. Not to get too far off the original topic, but the kid should NOT have been watching from elsewhere what was going on in that room. He should have faced penalties for invasion of privacy. But if he felt “entitled” to peep because he believed he had been edged out of his room to make space for a tryst and that made him uncomfortable–for whatever reason– he could and should have reported Tyler, who would also have faced disciplinary action.

It’s too bad this was not about invasion of privacy, because people are constantly victimized by this, while they’re totally unaware. This would have been a great warning to technophilic peeping toms. instead Tyler Clementi’s death has been exploited by a cause he did not necessarilly embrace.

This civilization’s embrace of homosexual behavior is a sign of the coming apocalypse.

However . . .

I tried to buy a house recently. I had almost signed the papers when the owner learned that I was a practicing Catholic. They refused to sell me the house. So I kept looking. I found another house. Almost signed the paper. And again, when they learned I was a practicing Catholic, they refused to sell me the house. The third time this happened, the owner said, “I only sell to devout Muslims.”

Irate, I told him that this kind of discrimination was deplorable. He said that it was perfectly fine to discriminate against me, “Because it isn’t like you were born Catholic. You chose to be Catholic. You act in certain ways that horrify me. You promote ideas that horrify me. Allah only knows what kind of deviant behavior you will teach your family in this house. I cannot in good conscience allow this house to serve your devil-deity. If you decide to reform your behavior, then I will allow you to buy my house.”

I tried to tell him that I was indeed born a Catholic, at baptism. But he said, “Look, if you were merely baptized, I’d led you buy the house. It isn’t who you are that bothers me. It is what you do. It’s the fact that you actually act Catholic!”

Most of us have accepted the idea that certain behaviors can be protected by law: faith being the most important kind of behavior. One may not persecute either Catholics or Blacks — even though being a Catholic depends on choice, and being Black depends on birth. Now ‘persecution’ may or may not venture into private business decisions: may a man sell his house to whomever he wishes, regardless of how vile his reasoning? On individual cases, it seems like government intrusion is unwarranted. But on a societal level, can we allow the mass of men to refuse to sell their homes to Black people, Jewish people, and dare I say . . . practicing homosexuals?

May a photographer refuse to take photos at a devout Catholic wedding, or a Hindu wedding, or Satanists wedding, or a homosexual wedding? All of those criteria are behavior-based. Once we say, “no, a photographer may not decline a wedding because of behavior”, then we run into those questions.

Now, many homosexuals want to say there were ‘born’ that way, putting them into the category of White Weddings, Black Weddings, Red-headed Weddings, Blue-eyed Weddings, etc. That puts their argument on firmer ground, because it makes their behavior untouchable. So it’s important to point out that, “No, homosexuality is defined by behavior, not biology.”

But pointing this out doesn’t make for a solid argument. Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).

And yet . . . am I correct in saying that businesses may not legally refuse service to Child Molesters who have done their time in prison and are off of probation? Can a car wash say, “We don’t provide this service to Child Molesters”? Can a day care refuse to hire a Child Molester?

As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.

Taking wedding pictures is a “public service?” Since when? Aren’t photographers private citizens running private businesses? If so, then they have the legal right to deny their services to anyone for any reason, whether you agree with their reasons or not.

A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

The essence of man is the image and likeness of God in him. When a man is born, the government gives him a birth certificate and a tax bill. When a rational, immortal soul is created and endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, God gives the man His Name: “I AM”. God is Being. God is existence. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God from one second to the next. Therefore, I am able to say: “I AM Mary De Voe.”

If someone (hetero or homosexual) needs food, drink, shelter or any of the other necessities of life, then yes, one may and should do business to provide for such services. That’s always the right and correct thing to do.

But no one needs photographic services. So if I own a photography studio and a homosexual “couple” comes to me to buy my services for photographing their disgusting and perverted “union,” then I may (and would) deny them.

Homosexual behavior is perversion, to be differentiated from the person. (So, by the way, is adultery and fornication – the same rules apply equally to all, hetero and homosexual.) We must never tolerate or normalize disgusting and perverted sexual behavior. But we are still required to love the homosexual (just as we are required to love the adulterer and the fornicator – again, the same rules apply to everyone). So yes, we are under obligation to help provide what is necessary for life without respect to who or what the person is. Yet there is no moral compulsion to accede to a homosexual’s request for non-necessary services. In fact, there is every reason to compel them understand how harmful and wrongful their perverted sexual behavior is on the rest of society. For example, I’m heterosexual and in my teenage years my Dad made perfectly clear to me how wrongful adultery and fornication are; his exact words were, “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” He deliberately endeavored to be as politically incorrect as possible. And I never got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and those children to whose genetic material I contributed within wedlock I currently support as is my duty (I do more than that, but the reader gets the idea: responsibility and accountability).

And I don’t care what passes for the law of the land and what it says when it supports this godless sexual iniquity called “gay rights”. These people have got to be made to realize that their disgusting, perverted behavior will not be tolerated in the public sphere. This is not a matter of judgment. It is a matter of preserving the cornerstone of society – the family: one man, one woman and children. That’s why God’s Law says: no homosexual behavior, no adultery, no fornication. God cares about humanity and what happens to it. So He makes Laws that if obeyed, will ensure its survival, even its prosperity. But the libertine hedonist doesn’t care about humanity, humanity’s survival or humanity’s prosperity. He only cares about his own license to titillate his genitals like a drug addict without regard for whom that will adversely affect or how injurious his behavior of sexual iniquity and idolatry is on the rest of society. This is called “Liberal-ISM” or “I”, “Self” and “Me”.

Yes, I want the behavior of these people shoved back into the closet where it belongs. It is at best abnormal, but even worse, a destroyer of civilization and a denier of God.

“can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.”
An individual who perpetrates sodomy is called a sodomite. How sad that the atheist must die to learn that he has immortality. Unless, of course, the atheist and the sodomite have confused immortality with heaven. Dante wrote that the devil is frozen, immobile, into the bottom of the pit. That would prevent the devil from soaring with the saints and angels. The devil roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls. The practice of homosexual behavior is the “ruin of souls”. Only one of many.

“If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” I Love You, Paul W. Primavera, but only Platonically. I believe that this love is called friendship. Your dad was a feminist. He did right by you. Do you know Paul, that science has determined that when a woman carries a child, some of the baby’s cells with his genome enter the mother’s body and the woman carries her beloved. Pretty awesome. I very much appreciate your handsome knowledge of Sacred Scripture and your generosity in sharing. God bless you.

“Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.
” God’s “I AM” is infinite. Man’s “I AM” is finite. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God “I AM” from one instance to the next. In Jesus Christ, God’s “I AM” is justified, and redeemed.

If you wanted to have a civil, rational, intelligent discussion without name-calling, you really shouldn’t have started out by calling my reply to your first post “disingenuous.” You poisoned this well.

I don’t hold grudges, so let’s move on.

As for your first point, let me make this simple: I don’t care if the arguments are the same. It means nothing to me. As far as private property rights go, the argument is valid in both cases.

And I’d like you to consider my questions. Would any of these comparisons be made if it were a cabal of Satanists demanding that Catholics photograph their ritual desecration of the Eucharist? Would these ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow Alabama be made on behalf of the poor, persecuted Satanists?

“As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.”

I’m fine with that. If you think I’m arguing that “my” group ought to have protections while gays or Satanists should have none, you’ve misread me.

For the the record: I do not object to Muslims refusing to photograph Christian weddings, or Satanist real-estate agents refusing to sell homes to Jews, or anything of the sort. I don’t believe in protected categories at ALL when it comes to private property rights. Gays can boycott Christian businesses they don’t like, just as we can boycott companies that support the obscene “gay agenda.”

I am concerned about attempts by radical caders representing a tiny minority using the coercive power of the state to impose their will in an authoritarian manner on people they could not rationally persuade to approve of their lifestyles. I am concerned with the preservation of MY right, MY liberty, to disapprove and to avoid behavior that I believe is morally vile and reprehensible.

If I don’t have that right, then I may as well live in a third-world dictatorship.

Valentin: Yes, you’re right. As I said, Tyler was in violation of the housing code, not to mention common courtesy, in expecting to have the room to himself and to de facto kick out his roommate. From what I’ve read on the matter, Tyler had problems relating to people and communicating with his peers. Assuming he could make the room off-limits to another person paying A LOT for board takes nerve. And he should have been held accountable.

Valentin, of course not, but the inclination is there from the beginning and acted upon as soon as the person reaches sexual maturity. Of course, adultery and fornication are equally condemned in Scripture — which is much ignored by the Bible thumpers, who seem to have a special disdain for homos. However, I must say I find homosexual activity more perverse than either adultery or fornication, which, though “sins,” seem more “normal” to me though no less punishable by the “creator” who allegedly made all of us.

As far as private property rights go, it is law that distinguishes mere possession (which is a physical fact) from ownership (which is a legal right) and law is an expression of the general will. Hence, Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

This was treated as a truism, long before Socialism was ever heard of. As the great classical scholar, Charles Rollin (1661-1741), reminds us, “Theft was permitted in Sparta. It was severely punished among the Scythians. The reason for this difference is obvious: the law, which alone determines the right to property and the use of goods, granted a private individual no right, among the Scythians, to the goods of another person, whereas in Sparta the contrary was the case.”

You can see this principle everywhere enunciated in the French Revolution. Take Mirabeau (a moderate) “Property is a social creation. The laws not only protect and maintain property; they bring it into being; they determine its scope and the extent that it occupies in the rights of the citizens” So, too, Robespierre (not a moderate) “In defining liberty, the first of man’s needs, the most sacred of his natural rights, we have said, quite correctly, that its limit is to be found in the rights of others. Why have you not applied this principle to property, which is a social institution, as if natural laws were less inviolable than human conventions?”

Without reading most of the Comments, let me come back again with this simple question, my good people. If I was born with the propensity of being a thief, would it be OK for me to take stealing as my lifelong occupation and not get punished because I was born that way???? Of course, not. Those child abusers who excuse themselves by saying they were born that way, do we say OK continued raping your infant daughter, continue sodomising your pre-teen son, your pupil, if you are a Teacher, your Choir youngsters, if you are a Protestant Pastor???? OF COURSE NOT. And, oooh yes, the Catholic Church has been crucified for the Priests who abused minors. If we accept Leo’s Creed none of those I have mentioned should be admonished and punished.

And how about a murderer claiming I was born with the propensity of killing people because it gives me great sexual joy to see a person expiring before my eyes????? Surely, we all know where such a person belongs.

So, again I say, sodomy, lesbianism are perversities that should never be accepted by normal, rational, intelligent human beings. And on this Catholic Website, we must PROCLAIM FROM THE ROOFTOPS…..WE REJECT TOTALLY THESE ABBERATIONS. THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY EVIL, INHUMAN, BEYOND ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND MUST BE REJECTED. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church shall never teach, accept or permit anything with is contrary to God’s and Natural Law. We pray for those with sodomy and lesbianism perversities but they MUST STOP pushing their filthy acts down our throats, forcing us to accept their bestialities, let alone accepting their unnatural co-habitations can be called “Marriage”. Marriage is between One man and One Woman. Even male animals do not mate with male animals. Sheesh, this Culture is Devilish….and once again, in the name of God I pray for these people that they look for a cure to their perversions…….the Medical Science must surely have an answer to cure these dirty disorders.

The Church holds that private property is a natural right, and that labor is what confers the status of private property on any object:

“Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates – that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.” — Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 9

It is simply false that the law “creates” private property.

“Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. ” — RN, 7

Private property rights exist prior to the state. The state exists to protect them:

“the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them” — RN, 51

Of course, the state can “regulate” private property. You can’t use your private property to violate someone else’s rights, or to engage in evil behavior (i.e. pornography or prostitution or something like that).

“The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.” — RN, 47

If the homosexual activist could give proof positive that the immortal soul of the partner and his own immortal soul will not be going to eternal, infernal damnation, that he is not subject to death, that almighty God Who made all things and keeps them in existence cannot watch over His creation, even while some men abuse themselves through homosexual behavior, for God to see exactly what these individuals are doing, then and only then, will I be free to make an informed choice to give informed consent to aggravated assault and battery of the anus.
Recently posted was the suicide of a young man, Tyler, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge because his homosexual behavior was broadcast into the public domain. God is watching and sees all homosexual behavior. When, in olden days, Kings and Queens married, their bishop had to present himself into their marriage chamber to verify that the marriage was consummated. So, the bishop did witness to the consummation of the marriage covenant and to the legitimacy of the children who became the next in line for the throne. God watched the consummation of the marriage covenant without the screen the bishop used. God watches every person in every instance of their life. It is called Divine Providence and found inscribed in our Declaration of Independence. So, each and every individual must live accordingly, in grace and dignity, for God is watching.
P.S. I really do not believe that any individual will be spared death and judgment. This is what the devil, Satan, promised Adam and Eve. Abel was murdered and Adam and Eve both died. The homosexual proponent has embraced a losing argument.
P.P.S. If a bishop was not present in your marriage chamber, you and your offspring will probably not be the next king and/or queen. Off the cuff: Does anyone know if the bishop was present in Obama’s marital chamber?

It is government’s duty to protect private property, virginity, innocence and “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In Executive Order 13575, Rural Councils, Obama arrogated to himself the unauthorized power to seize private property at will.

But we read in the 2nd book of Institutes and in the 41st book of the Digest of Justinian that “those things that we take from enemies become ours by Natural Law (naturali ratione). In fact, for the Roman jurists, it is the paradigm case of acquisition of ownership. Now, without a law and a ruler, all men are enemies, so there would be no security of possession. His “natural right” is only as good as his natural powers of defending it.

The Church certainly recognises strict limits to the right of private property. Populorum Progressio (23), citing St Ambrose, “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,” declares, “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

As an example, the Pope states (24) that “ If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”

So there you have it; a right that is contingent (“not absolute”), conditional and defensible (by expropriation). Even Robespierre was asserting no more than that.

Not to get off topic here, but I’m not so sure Mary is correct about bishops and royal weddings. I know it was common practice for bishops to bless the marriage bed/chamber of a newly married king/queen or prince/princess on their wedding night…. but did they REALLY have to stick around to witness the, ahem, main event? I rather doubt that. There were other ways of verifying that a royal marriage had been consummated that were, shall we say, a bit less intrusive.

Returning to our topic…

I know some people like to compare the photographer refusing to do photos for a same-sex “wedding” to restaurants refusing to serve blacks in the Jim Crow South.

However, there is another important difference between the two situations (besides the difference between race and sexual preference/orientation/behavior). The segregation that took place in the South was enforced by STATE laws and local ordinances and was not necessarily, or entirely, the result of “free market” choices by individual business owners exercising their right to do business as they pleased. If a restaurant owner had wanted to serve black customers in the Jim Crow era, he/she would have been forbidden by state law to do so, just as a restaurant owner who does NOT want to serve blacks today is forbidden by both federal and state law from refusing such service.

If New Mexico had a state law forbidding ALL business owners from providing services to couples attempting same-sex marriages, on the grounds that same-sex marriage is illegal in that state (and at last report, it was), then the gay couple in question might have grounds to sue to have that law overturned. An argument could be made that if such a state law existed, it would be an unjust infringement upon not only the rights of the couple involved, but upon the rights of business owners who wanted to provide services for same-sex weddings, or had no objections to doing so.

But that is not the case here. This is an individual choice by ONE business owner, which leaves other business owners perfectly free to provide the services the same-sex couple is seeking.

A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

If that’s the case, then it sets a pretty troubling precedent, even if same sex marriages were a-ok. Private businesses should have the legal right to choose their clients – especially if said businesses aren’t essential to life. I think refusing to sell food and water to a same-sex couple would be very wrong, but refusing to take their pictures? Nah.

I don’t care about Robespierre. I don’t care about the 54th book of Blah or the 78th Treatise on Blegh. In some contexts these might be relevant, depending upon what you want to establish. As concerns the moral rightness and justification of a thing, only Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium count.

You’ve ignored the multiple quotations from Rerum Novarum I provided that demonstrate that the right to private property is natural, sacred, and inviolable – subject to some regulations, to be sure, but not to excessive taxation and certainly not expropriation for some social cause.

“The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” — RN, 15

“We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable.” — RN, 46

Meanwhile, this statement:

“These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

What does this mean, exactly? That “appropriating surplus goods” in such conditions (and if we think globally, this would mean EVERYONE) ought to be illegal? Or that it is simply immoral? If there is an argument here that the “surplus goods” ought to be confiscated by the state and redistributed to the needy, I don’t see it. If it is simply a moral admonishment, fine.

What we have a natural RIGHT to is the fruits of our labor, which become our property. Whether or not we privately own the fruits of our labor has NOTHING TO DO with the material condition of our neighbor. Of course if we refuse to act charitably towards those in need when we very well could, then we will be held accountable by God.

I don’t want to get into all the reasons why I find Giovanni Montini’s statements, especially about economics, highly suspect and not deserving of uncritical and immediate assent. But I don’t believe I can be faulted for standing firmly on the foundation laid by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.

Bonchamps your last comment seems dangerous are you saying that the Gospel is the only word of God? or are you saying that if something says something contrary the Gospel should be rejected? because one big difference the Baptists and us Catholics is that Baptists claim that the Gospel is the only word of the lord where as we believe that the Gospel is the word of the lord.

Well Ultimately Christ, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are the source of authority because they are the Author, but The Holy Spirit being the protector of Tradition and The Magisterium and God speaking through the Prophets as well as written accounts by the Apostles all three you mentioned do have Authority.

I don’t care about your typos. Your implication that I was somehow elevating the Gospel above other sources of authority was clear even with the typos, and it is that implication that is completely false. I didn’t even mention the Gospels. So I really don’t know why you would even say such a thing.

I mentioned the Corpus Juris of the Catholic emperor Justinian, because it has been treated by theologians and canonists as an authoritative (but no infallible) source of Natural Law reasoning.

As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.

Now, Section 23 gives a clear rôle to the civil authority, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” Here the Pope is quoting from the Letter to the 52nd Social Week at Brest, in L’homme et la révolution urbaine, Lyon: Chronique sociale (1965), 8-9.

He then proceeds to give the example I have already cited, “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.” I call it an example, for it is difficult to suppose that one régime applies to immoveable property and another to movables or to intellectual property, or that one is liable to expropriation and the other is not. Certainly, there is nothing in the encyclical to suggest this

The balance to be struck is set out in Section 33, “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.”

“As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.”

If you want to do that, be my guest. I cannot overlook what is a clear conflict of fundamental assumptions about the origin of private property. I also can’t overlook Montini’s left-wing sympathies, including his meetings with Saul Alinsky.

“Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. ”

This is faulty logic, commonly found among left-liberals and socialists. The “interplay of competition” increases everyone’s wealth – it is not a zero-sum game in which some people grow rich at the cost of other people’s poverty.

Finally, the idea that you can have “public authorities” establishing goals, plans, and methods – and then graciously allowing private property owners to participate in them – while avoiding a planned economy is rather spurious. The best “plan” is to allow people to make rational economic decisions within a legal framework that protects private property rights.

“You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,”
“My kingdom is not of this world” The principle of separation of church and state. “You would not have power if it had not been given to you from above.” Caesar belongs to God. In the Old Testament, the Israelites acknowledged God. Every seventh year was a Jubilee Year. The land reverted back to God, its Creator. After the Jubilee year, the land, according to its legal demarcations, usually reverted to its original owners. During the Jubilee year, the soil was left fallow. The soil was left to rest, untilled and the people ate of the aftergrowth.
The Popes’ encyclicals speak to the sovereign individual person, to the soul of each and every one, literally, to their conscience. Read from this perspective, the Popes’ encyclicals encourage perfect charity and conscientious stewardship. If one has more than one can handle, one probably has more than he needs and ought to share for the sake of the land, if not for brotherhood, knowing full well that if he falls into need, his fellow brethren will share with him, and even in their need. The Popes’ encyclicals are a call to serve God righteously…in one nation under God.
Proper government seeks to serve, to establish Justice and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity for the common good in good will. Government exists at the will of the people, for the people and by the people.
Communism denies that it is a creature of the people, existing at the will of the people. Communism is the imposition of unauthorized, usurped power over the people, as in the HHS mandate. Communism is evil because it denies the Creator, the nature of the human being, as a sovereign person, composed of body and immortal soul, redefines the laws of nature to accommodate its evil agenda, and usurps the unalienable rights endowed by “their Creator”.
Obama’s regime demands good will towards its evil agenda. Hitler made the slaves sing and smile on their way to the work camps… or death. Hitler demanded that Hitler be their “pursuit of Happiness”.

The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.

As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.

Art Deco is correct: “Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.”

The Constitution means nothing to these collectivists except as it exists to block their schemes. It like manner the Declaration of Independence means nothing. Nor coincidentally do Holy Writ, the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition.

Their god is themselves. Their religion is hedonistic libertinism. Their goal is the destruction of anything sacred, including but not limited to God. They had their chance and succeeded with murdering God on the Cross, and that proved to be not their victory but their defeat.

They may ignore or void the Constitution. They may ignore or void the Declaration of Independence. But one day every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that HE is Lord of all to the glory of God the Father. Obama and his minions from hell shall NOT escape. Hallelujah!

“The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.”

Well, when you discover what part of the story it is I’m not telling through your own diligent research, please share with us all.

“As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.”

No one said it “had bearing on US law.” The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement.

It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can and so a married man and woman deserve to be recognised as more in accordance with god than 2 men trying and failing to reach the same position as the married couple.

“The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement”

If a man or woman does not love enough to sublimate their sexual impulses, they do not love at all. Homosexual behavior is not only not marriage, homosexual behavior is not love. The gay-movement seeks to codify the vice of lust as the virtue of Love. The gay-movement seeks to impose corruption and abolish the duty of the state to protect virginity, innocence and the freedom of the people to protect their virginity and innocence. The gay-movement seeks to impose their phallic idolatry on America’s founding principles as an unalienable right endowed by “their Creator”. The gay-movement is not an individual, a unique person created by God. The gay-movement is actually demanding to be recognized as a legal corporation enjoying the freedom of a legal corporation as an artificial person and they are demanding birth as an artificial person from every sovereign citizen. A normal gay-person lives his private life, privately and does not demand that any other person recognize him as an establishment anti-thetical to culture, family and the founding principles. Only individual persons are created equal, with unalienable rights, not so of legal entities or artificial corporations whose so -called “rights” are inscribed by their founders at will, to be imposed by their founders, upon the will of the people.

“It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can”

Absolutely. It is very noticeable that, whilst the civil codes of various countries rarely define marriage, they all contain the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father and many jurists have seen filiation as the primary purpose of civil marriage

It was this consideration that led the highest courts in a country so wedded to the principle of laïcité as France to reject same-sex marriage on equality grounds, as not so much immoral as illogical.

Roe v. Wade created an artificial community of individuals who could legally separate the human body from the human soul, literally dismember the soul from the body, and thereby end the begotten humanity yet to be born. The community of Roe v. Wade was superimposed upon our founding principles enumerated in The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Roe was to have been tried under Freedom of Religion as humanity is a gift from God. Another illegally contrived, superimposed community opposed to God is a different religion. Roe establishes atheism. The Right to Choose community chooses between the Person of God, their Creator and endower of unalienable right to Life, the Giver of Life and the taker of Life, the abortionist.

Atheism, tried under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion at least acknowledged God and the fact that now, the Person of God was being dispossessed under the artificial legal person contrived called penumbra, a lie and perjury in a court of law.

Gay-marriage agenda, another artificial illegal community intends to supplant matrimony as the proper relationship between one man’s soul and another woman’s soul in covenant. Matrimony is a covenant between two persons, body and immortal soul, ordained by God. The gay-marriage agenda too, must be tried under Freedom of Religion, since it too, judges what is God’s and what is man’s. God is the source of authority in civil marriages.

“or prohibit the free exercise thereof” has been used against every virtue and all that is Holy. “Or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” is being used as license by every vice against every virtue. These illegal constructs must be tried under the penumbra of TRUTH, God is TRUTH, Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a single virtue of peaceable assembly to speak, and pray about ‘their Creator”, in public and in private, as all persons are joint and common tenants of the public square.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights declares that all inalienable human rights are derived from the people to whom a person is born, but it does not tell of the Freedom of God WHO endows the people with their freedom and inalienable human rights. Kind of like Human Rights and FREEDOM evolve from America. The evolution of inalienable human rights from other people is another false construct that must be tried under the First Amendment’s Freedom of God and man’s response to the gift of Faith from God, man’s Religion.

One world government under the bank did not work in the European Union why would it work in America?